Western Union Telegraph Company v. State
Decision Date | 18 March 1907 |
Citation | 101 S.W. 745,82 Ark. 302 |
Parties | WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY v. STATE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; Edward W Winfield, Judge; reversed and dismissed.
Judgment reversed and dismissed.
Rose Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough, for appellant.
Lewis Rhoton and De E. Bradshaw, for appellee.
This is an action instituted on behalf of the State of Arkansas as plaintiff against appellant, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York and doing business in this State as a telegraph company, to recover a balance of $ 19,404 fees alleged to be due to the State for filing with the Secretary of State a copy of its articles of incorporation.
Appellant filed with the Secretary of State a copy of its articles of incorporation.
Appellant filed with the Secretary of State on June 23, 1905, a copy of its articles of incorporation and paid a fee of $ 90, but it is shown by the pleadings in this action that appellant's capital stock was $ 97,370,000, and it is claimed on behalf of the State that a fee of $ 19,494 should have been paid which would be $ 30 for the first $ 25,000 of the capital stock and $ 5 for each additional $ 25,000 thereof. The court sustained a general demurrer to the answer, rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the amount asked in the complaint upon the defendant's failure to plead further, and the defendant appealed.
The course of legislation in this State prescribing the terms upon which foreign corporations may do business here is as follows: In 1887 a statute was enacted providing that, before any foreign corporation should begin to carry on any business in the State, it should, by a certificate under the hand of the president filed in the office of the Secretary of State, designate a citizen of the State as agent upon whom process against it might be served and also stating its principal place of business in the State. Act April 4, 1887.
On February 16, 1899, another statute was passed, section one of which is substantially the same as the former statute just referred to, and section two, as amended by a later act passed during the same session on May 8, 1899, reads as follows:
Section three of this act imposed a fine of not less than $ 1,000 upon any foreign corporation which should fail or refuse to comply with the terms of the statute; and section four allowed corporations then doing business in the State ninety days from the passage of the act within which to comply with its terms.
The General Assembly passed another statute on April 23, 1901, entitled "An act to regulate foreign corporations other than railway, express, telegraph, palace car and insurance corporations." It reads as follows:
An act passed May 6, 1905, fixes the fees for filing articles of incorporation by foreign and domestic corporations at the sum of $ 30 for all corporations the capital stock of which is $ 25,000 or under, and an additional sum of $ 5 for each additional $ 25,000 of the capital stock.
It will be observed that the act of 1901 re-enacts, substantially, all of section two of the act of 1899, so far as concerns the requirements imposed upon foreign corporations, and, in addition thereto, requires such corporation to file a copy of its articles of incorporation with the clerk of the county in which it has opened an office for the purpose of transacting business, and also to file with the Secretary of State and county clerk a statement showing the proportional part of its capital stock which it has in use in the State and county.
The controlling question in this case is, then, whether or not section two of the act of 1899 is impliedly...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walther v. McDonald
...intent, because of ambiguities in its language, that the courts look to the title as an aid to construction. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. State, 82 Ark. 302, 101 S.W. 745; Payne v. State, 124 Ark. 20, 186 S.W. 612; Laprairie v. City of Hot Springs, 124 Ark. 346, 187 S.W. 442; McLeod v. Pu......
-
State of Arkansas on Relation of Attorney General v. Trulock
...of intention to repeal section 5667, the provision with reference to the commissioners would be repealed by implication. 92 Ark. 600; 82 Ark. 302; 96 Ark. 92-98. this leaves the city council with no implied power to appoint commissioners, since all its powers must be derived from Legislativ......
-
Collman v. State
... ... Appeal ... from Union" Circuit Court; Richard M. Mann, on exchange, ... Judge; reversed ... \xC2" ... Bank & Trust Company, a corporation organized and doing a ... banking business under the laws ... 600; ... Lawyer v. Carpenter, 80 Ark. 411, 97 S.W ... 662; Western Union Tel. Co. v. State, 82 ... Ark. 302, 101 S.W. 745; Milwee v. Board ... ...
-
Roberts v. Street Improvement District No. 2 of Morrilton
...and (3) general act No. 395 repealed special act No. 39 approved Feb. 4, 1920. 102 Ark. 401; 102 Ark. 411; 103 Ark. 298; 75 N.E. 52; 82 Ark. 302; 88 Ark. 324. Gordon & Combs, for appellee. The demurrer was properly sustained. 140 Ark. 122; 141 Ark. 140; 94 Ark. 501, 502. Evidence is not adm......